by our live coverage of the house. in about 45 minutes, we'll talk with sponsor of the balanced budget amendment, va. congressman. also vermont congressman peter welch an update on the news corp. phone hacking scandal with the reporter of the london paper," the daily telegraph." ♪ host: two hot topics this morning. we will be talking about the phone hacking scandal in the uk. we will also be talking about the passage of the cut, cat, and the balance at that passed in the house last night. we begin in the newspapers this morning, talking about the murdoch testimony in parliament yesterday. in this first part of "the

journal," what do you think the impact may be of this situation? do you think that it could happen here? etc. for democrats, 202-624-1111. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-624-0760. remember, allow 30 days between your call. you can also send us a pitch with a message. twitter.com/c-spanwj. e-mail, journal@c-span.org. or you can join the conversation on facebook. no-i n c span when it comes to the facebook -- no hyphen in c-

span when it comes to the facebook page. we will start with a couple of british pages this morning. this is "the guardian." you can see the screen grabs there. three screen grabs of murdoch slapping down the pike thrower. a picture of rupert murdoch and when the murdoch after losing the testimony -- leaving the testimony. here is "los angeles times" with the same picture. "murdoch rejects blame in scandal." here is the headline out of toronto.

"news core defense, sorry but not at fault." here is "the financial times" this morning. "most humble day of my life," that is the headline there. "the washout -- the washington post," "murdoch's apologize to lawmakers" is the headline. here is "usa today." there is is in the money section. "murdoch has most humble de." from "the new york times," who has been playing this out quite a bit. in the left-hand column --

"murdoch's denied that they knew of illegal acts." here is one from the tabloids in new york, "the daily news." "humble pie." that is not a tabloid that he owned. one that he did alone, "the new york post," the story came on page 35. "frank talk at probe." from "the wall street journal," and other paper that he owns, " murdoch's are grilled." of course, the attackers story gets played. murdoch apologizes at parliament hearing, deflects blame, this is from "the wall street journal," this morning.

this one -- "ceo's age becomes an issue." reinforcing the news -- the views of some shareholders that he should step aside.

host: again, this is in " wall street journal." -- in "the wall street journal." this article is from the president of the american society of news editors.

"could murdoch scandal have been guided u.s. media"? -- scandal happened in u.s. media"? host: that is just a little bit from ken paulsen this morning in his editorial. what do you think the impact is of the british phone hacking scandal? we will put the numbers on the screen. we will begin with a democrat,

eric. hello, eric. you are on the air. caller: [unintelligible] host: eric? go ahead with your comment. caller: it shows how the money is. he sits there and denies he had no [unintelligible] hard enough [unintelligible] host: from santa cruz, heidi, hello. caller: i think it is the whole business model. he is like an evil genius. what about using al capone as the business model? hacking into all of these computers?

i think that james murdock sat there and lied to his -- lied through his teeth. host: do you think it will happen here? caller: i think that that is how i operate. he is an american citizen. the fact that he is on scrupulous, he should be culpable to our laws for doing it like that. host: our next call comes from mr. and mrs. peterson in cranberry, texas. caller: good morning. how are you? host: very good. what do you think about this phone hacking scandal?

caller: i thought it was so funny with the pie. [unintelligible] host: do you think that this is a big deal at all? in aer: in a way, yes, and a way, no. he is a nice man, but he is too old. it takes a man that this young to do something like that host: do you think you could run all of those companies? caller: me? i am a painter. host: i know. i have your painting in my office. caller: my wife is looking at me and telling me to tell you good morning.

host: good morning. send me your e-mail address and i will send you a picture of it in profit -- in my office. caller: listen, my wife's birthday is tomorrow, she turned 81. host: that is right. you married an older woman. mr. peterson, you enjoy that heat wave in texas. we have got to get moving. we appreciate it. this would message, regarding the phone hacking scandal -- host: mike is a republican in arizona. hello. caller: i can see this going on in great britain, i guess the police are involved.

but then they are doing it for us in the same manner. scanning e-mails, looking for certain words and what ever. i do not see any difference. i mean, they are exchanging information, but the fact that the government is concerned in one place and not the other is somewhat humorous or dreadful, depending on your point of view. host: thank you for calling the idea this morning. a bit more from the can paulson editorial this morning.

every news organization

host: next call on the british phone hacking scandal and its impact comes from denver. hello. caller: i'd think it has been going on for a long time in america. the sponsors, rep john de

gaulle, michigan, and republicans worked together with the chamber of commerce to defeat it in 1997. him and reagan had health plans to take $1,900,000 in total compensation and resigned. his three underlings took almost 1100 million dollars. host: tie this into what we are talking about. caller: i think that this is going on for a long time. where do you see them on the news? where is it talked about? where it is costing the health care industry so much money? to top it off, william sullivan

-- william maguire of united healthcare took $52 million. you know, that is a lot of money. host: you gave me the chance to tie it -- we gave you the chance to tie it in, we have to keep moving. ellen? caller: hello. i think this is pathetic, that a man in that position should resort to phone hacking. i wonder if it is really true. but the government is doing it to us. it is wrong. i wish they would go back to the ethical lives that we remember when i was a young person. i have never seen the country in a worse condition. people telling other people, it is just terrible. awful.

host: we want to be some of the facebook comments that are coming in to facebook.com/cspan. if you want to make a comment or continue the conversation on facebook, go right to our page. here are some of the comments.

host: those are four comments from the facebook site. you can go to facebook.com/cspan if you would like to continue the conversation there or make a comment that we can use here on the air. c-span 2, live, we are covering the second day of the hearing in the parliamentary committee that held yesterday's hearing. it is happening now. but right -- what? right now rupert murdoch is back testimony -- testifying. what's the point that i make is that that needs to be given to the inquiry. what needs to happen now is the police need to go absolutely in pursuit of the truth.

if people have been paying police officers, the police officers may need to be prosecuted and the people that need to pay -- the people that did the paying need to be prosecuted. host: that was obviously david cameron. flip over to c-span to and you can watch that. greg, charlotte, n.c., what do you think about the phone hacking scandal? caller: clearly our department should be starting aggressive investigations into news corp. in our country. this is a direct result of media corporations -- consolidations here.

host: charlotte is hosting the democratic convention. our next call comes from tampa, where they are hosting the democratic -- republican convention in 2012. caller: this is one of the most important issues to come along in a while. in general i hope you go into this in some death -- some that. the news media is supposed to be the fourth estate. there are so many media outlets.

now you have people across the board telling everyone their opinion. [unintelligible] getting more money for advertisements. it has become a money game. thank god for c-span. you do reporting. you do not bring your opinions to the show. i do not know why more people do not watch c-span than ever before. host of this with the message -- -- host: this twitter message --

host: run, republican, pontiac, ill.. caller: i do not know if you are aware, but we already had the hacking scandal in this country. host: what is it? caller: back in the 1990's there was a florida couple that happen to be democrats. not much was made of the fact that they had done this. newt gingrich had made some negative comments. that was the story. host: i think that rep. make your meant was investigated about that, was he not? caller: frankly, i do not remember. it seems to me that more should

have been made over this investigation of this couple, but it never happened. host: is the impact of the current situation a big deal to you? caller: it is. i am concerned that people in their zeal to attack pop -- to attack fox news might do something to affect freedom of the press. host: the next call comes from john a., tennessee. -- johnny, tennessee. caller: fox did wiretapping of a company in new jersey. they were making big dollars. when they change things back on the internet, it went straight back to the fox news co..

they took it to court and before the judge. fox settled out of court. then they turned around for $600 million and bought the company. in the stand, right now, that murdoch has -- i understand, right now, that murdoch has immunity. is that true? host: do not know the answer to that. caller: i heard that it was and that did -- and i did now know that it was true or not. if it is, it is just like oliver north back then. hacking is illegal and should be brought on trial. host: from "the financial times" this morning, this is their lead editorial --

host: we have this twitter message -- host: abraham, your arm, we are talking about the impact -- you are on, we are talking about the impact of the phone hacking scandal. caller: rupert murdoch reminds me of nixon. they allowed their subjects to just run amok. should he get immunity? i do not think so. host: chicago, republican. caller: i was calling more to talk about the implications of hacking itself. is a two way street. i do not think that murdoch or his affiliates would actually realize that people are working right now to return the favor,

as it were. you have groups out there like anonymous who are pretty much working around-the-clock to get what they do not trust of the mainstream media out of the situation. working with wikileaks to get solid connections between murdoch and the scandal. host: louise, kokomo, what do you think the impact is? caller: i was listening to james murdoch. he acted like he did not know anything that was going on. back in 2007 there was a big payoff. no one ever brought that out. i think there should have been more about that after all of that money was paid in 2007.

host: thank you for calling in. chris graves sends this twitter message -- host: the answer is is zero, no connection between news corp's and c-span. -- news corp. and c-span. kelly, good morning. caller: the impact is probably on the family of that little girl murder victim where they tap the phone. there are real victims here. this is not all theoretical. if the big boys want to play games, that is one thing. if they start messing around with small people, someone ought to jack them up. thank you. host: another issue we will be covering this morning is last

night's house of representatives passage. here is one take on that. that is from "the hill" this morning.

here is the vote breakdown. 229 republicans and five democrats voted for cut, cap, and balance, a total of 234. .ou can see the five democrats five democrats who voted for cut, cap, and balance. 181 democrats and nine republicans voted against it. the nine republicans, michele bachmann, paul brown of georgia, -- broun of georgia, here is what michele bachmann said in her statement of why she voted against it. "mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion, while

i embrace the principles of cut, cap, and balance, it does not go far enough and fundamentally restructuring the way washington spends taxpayer dollars." next call on the british phone hacking scandal comes from memphis. james and are independent line. you are on c-span. caller: i listened to the trial yesterday, what ever you want to call it, and when they turn to all of these people, as it did not seem right to me. i think he should take responsibility. it did not slam right to me for someone to come up and all the sudden have like they do not know anything that is going on, when i have heard several times that he knows everything going on in his company. and to pay out this kind of money and he does not know what

is going on? it does not seem right to me. host: thanks for calling in this morning. one of the lines of questioning that came up with the murdochs is it was hacking into the phones of the 9/11 victims. here is a response. >> we have no evidence of that at all. >> i was just going to say that as our incredibly serious allegations and have come to light very recently. we do not know the veracity of those allegations and are trying to understand precisely what they are and at any investigation to -- i remember well the september 11 attacks. i was in the far east at that time. it is just appalling to think that anyone associated with one of our papers would have done something like that.

i am aware of no evidence of that fact. i am well aware of the allegations and will eagerly cooperate with any investigation or try to find out what went on at that time. this is very new as an allegation, just a few days old. they're serious allegations and that sort of activity would have absolutely no place -- it would be appalling. host: next call, james and martinsville, virginia. on the republican line. caller: i think it is pretty bad it's of very the world news and britain used to be a reputable newspaper until it just got to be a nasty tabloid like the rest of them. no difference from what tmz is doing about phone hacking. anyone that has two available funds can hack into a voice mail.

media matters, the liberal media matters' corp., has been after fox. this just adds fuel to the fire to bring down fox. you have a good morning. host: a few men -- a few more comments from our facebook page. scott posts this. looks like we need freedom from the press. and then, fox has been the disinformation organ of the political right in north america. it shows how truly corrupt these people are. thisa posts, if doj let's criminal enterprise off, we are finished. using the to facebook -- you can go to facebook and post comments

on the c-span page. worcester, massachusetts, jerry honored democrats aligned. caller: i am amazed that people do not recall from 35 years ago ted kennedy was screaming about this guy rupert marjah, the australian, kind to control america's media through the radio and tv and newspapers. ted kennedy knew he was able. he was an evil australian said on a conservative right-wing agenda, and if he can control the media, he can control the minds of the people. this evil empire, this is like a cartoon character. trying to rule the world. this guy, he's got to go. goodbye. host: that was jerry. this is roger simon's column in "politico." i first and last talk to rupert

murdoch in early 1984 when he bought my newspaper in chicago. i say it was my newspaper not because they owned it, card reader people than even the condit --

i had a conversation with him about various sections of the newspaper. i do not understand anything about american sport, he told me breezily, but i know that collards like it. -- coloreds like it. politico.com is the website. karen, are you with us? sari, i have a different tone down here and i could not find the right button. caller: i remember a few years ago when: paul's son was over the fcc, and when they went to get permission to buy up the new paper, and the

party to be able to purchase all this media at the same time, one owner. kahne the fine now, i've seen a few days ago that he works for murdoch. it is the same thing with senators and congressmen. we do not ever get them out of office, but they pass these laws for corporations and other people, and they put these bills through, then when they get out of office, they go to work for them. greenspan, dodd, a lot of them. we should investigate that. treasonous orl against the welfare of the people of this country. i think we need to clean house on all fronts. i think it is corrupt.

what freedoms we have left, we do not have any. they have taken all our freedoms from us. we are under constant surveillance. they have taxed everything. these people sitting out here, starting to death, who would have thought that in the united states of america, most of the people are on food stamps? food stamps, and now they want to cut food stamps. host: we are going to have to leave it there, karen. this is from "the hill." team announces third hearing on a radical muslim. representative pete king says the hearing will take place on july 27.

orlando, florida, linda on our republican line. caller: i am not very articulate so please give me a chance to express myself. i think people involved with hacking, there need to be really strict laws against this, weather in the media are having a situation here in orlando, where the mayor has been attacked by some hackers from a group called anonymous. it is their means of protesting some of laws concerning feeding the homeless here. they have shut down our airport, they have shut down some of the catholic associations, the chamber of commerce, and they have made violent threats to the

mayor through hacking. they said that they will continue doing this and keep going on and on until the city of orlando changes the laws. this is not the way to get things done, as we know, in our society. anyway, i was making a correlation there that there are other ways that hacking can be done. it really needs to be, as i said, they need to have really strict laws against it. it is dangerous and it is wrong. host: that was land that in orlando, -- linda in orlando. from twitter. it was announced yesterday that the department of justice here in the u.s. would begin an

investigation as well. from political this morning, maxine waters threatens to sue house ethics committee. a democrat of california threatening to take the house ethics committee to a federal court if the secretive panel charges her with any violation of house rules. marcus is a democrat and jacksonville, florida. what you think about the phone hacking scandal and its impact? caller: while i disagree wholeheartedly with a murdochs testimony, they would like to say some critics say some kind of face. and not be vilified the world over. they could afford to take a page

from the reagan doctrine when iran-contra started hopping. he claimed he did not know what was going on one iran-contra happened. but he took responsibility for not knowing and not doing anything about it at that time. the least they could do is at least go ahead and take some responsibility and say, we are wrong, we did not know what was going on, but we are responsible for it and we will do to get past it. that's all i had to say. host: a "weekly standard" reporting this morning, chris christie heading to iowa. here is an e-mail that recently landed in the "weekly standard" e-mail box.

one more article from politico. twitter presidential debate set for wednesday. they will not be staring each other down or sharing a stage. it is not clear that all will be providing their own answers.

next call, pittsburg, republican line. you are on the air. what do you think? caller: i wanted to make a comment about hacking into sarah palin's e-mails. all the sudden it seems like that disappeared. it was a congressman's son, imagine that. i do not know -- there is that thing on the tv where all you have to do is change the channel. i think c-span will be next. i think we are turning into russia. it is scary. instead of investing in gold, we have to invest in lead and brass. that is all i have to say.

ron, sarah, run. host: we will return to this topic at 9:15 a.m. with the washington correspondent for the english paper "the daily telegraph." carole on our facebook page. someone should inform the public that murdoch also owns sky news in the u.k. which is left of center. he plays both sides. our own media is owned by corporations. if it is investigated, our own politicians will also be found to be controlled. it is time to turn our attention for the next hour and a half to the topic of the debt ceiling debate and that cut, cap, and balance act passed by the house last night. up first, bob goodlatte, a prime sponsor of the budget -- balanced budget amendment. after him will be congressman peter welch, a democrat of

vermont, and chief deputy whip on the democrat side. we will be right back. ♪ >> if you want to be informed about the world in american politics and the congress, it is not so hard. c-span has said digital archive it goes back to 1987. you can basically watch anything

that happens in the house or senate chambers right there in your screen. there are sources of information unimaginable 20 years ago. >> the c-span video library makes it easy to follow washington with instant access from the white house to the house and senate chambers. the peabody award-winning c-span video library -- is washington your way. >> on book tv, literacy, economics, humor, malcolm x, and the obama administration. a few of the panels of our live coverage of the harlem book festival. the life and career of barack obama, senior. what you do with a stolen moonrock? do not try to sell it on the internet. look for the complete schedule

at our website. >> revisit this civil war on american history tv on c-span3. we are live from the manassas national battlefield on the 150th anniversary of the battle of bull run. a call-in program, including a professor on lincoln and its transformation into a wartime commander in chief. watch civil war programs throughout the weekend. historian pierre carmichael said the military factors that led to the onset of the war. a panel of civil war historians discuss the challenges that face to both the north and south said they prepared for battle. if the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/history. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now one your screen is congressman bob goodlatte, a republican of virginia, prime

sponsor of the balanced budget amendment, and a supporter of the cut, cap, and balance act which passed the house last night. congressman, if you would, what is the importance of the cut, cap, and balance act and how does it fit into a larger picture of the debt ceiling debate going on on many fronts? guest: cut, cap, and balance that was passed, it is the first proposal to deal with the debt limit crisis in the out of control spending, that has passed by their body. it needs to be given some serious consideration. the key to its passage is not just the significant spending cuts, $5.8 trillion over 10 years, and the caps that control the spending for the next several years, but also the fact that it is tied to a balanced budget amendment. there are many members of the house and i suspect the senate

as well, but clearly we're talking about the house initially, that are very reluctant to vote for this debt limit increase without seeing substantial spending cuts and reforms. the fact that we got all but nine house republicans to vote to raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion is directly related to their willingness to do so conditioned on the passage of a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. i think that is a key that needs to be looked at very closely in both the house and the senate. i really think that while we can differ on what balanced fund -- what balanced budget amendment should be passed and the spending cuts that should take place, that this provides the key to solving the whole problem. host: when it comes to a balanced budget amendment, the president has already said he will veto it. it does not stand a chance in the senate. is that a fair statement?

to sever's important at the pieces of this. the president cannot veto a balanced budget amendment because it goes directly to the states. as far as the rest of the package, it is important for the president to say that. clearly weeks of negotiation at the white house have not resulted in anything they can pass by the house or the senate. therefore, looking at something that has passed, and then starting from that vantage point, to see what the senate can do with that, it is an important process. we're looking to the senate to take this up and hopefully but on this. if they cannot vote on this, they should send something back to the house. i've talked to a great number of house members and senators about the balanced budget amendment to the constitution. on both sides of the aisle, close to 300 house members.

this balanced budget amendment has 130 co-sponsors. but house joint resolution no. 2, identical to the balanced budget amendment that passed in 1995 and failed in the senate by one vote, as a but jardine -- has a majority of house members and a lot more willing to vote for. this is a key part of these discussions. the balanced budget amendment should be front and center in the discussions about the debt limit. the public understands it and they want a long-term solution to this problem. host: when it comes to the debt ceiling debate, two more proposals include the gang of six proposal gaining steam in the press, and mitch mcconnell's proposal. guest: first of all, the view in the house including my view on mitch mcconnell's proposal is,

well, that would be a last resort kind of thing. i would have to see what it looks like when it takes legislative form. if it advocates -- it abdicates responsibility to the president and if it is not constitutional, as some have suggested, because it gives article one responsibilities to the president, then i would not before. the gang of six proposals have some problems as far as getting it together and giving us something to let get to actually judge it. a number of the revenue raisers in and are offset by revenue reductions, particularly focused on the alternative minimum tax, but some of those revenue raisers are indeed simply that, tax increases.

if the principle that our leaders have put forward in the house, if you're going to close corporate loopholes and do things like that, as long as you apply that to things like reducing the impact of the alternative minimum tax as it affects more more people in the middle class, that would be something we would look at, but only if it is revenue neutral. host: did you sign the note -- the grover norquist pledge? guest: many years ago. host: we will put the telephone numbers of on the screen by political affiliation. we're talking about the debt ceiling and other financial issues. here is a part of dana milbank's column. nobody knows what reagan who

died in 2004 would make of the current fight over the debt limit. the tea party members have little regard for the policies of the man they claim to revere.

guest: first of all, some of the comments and there have already been proven incorrect. as i said a moment ago, all but nine house republicans yesterday voted to address the debt limit, and voted to address it in the amount that the president has requested, they get him past the next election. but we are also very dedicated as was president reagan and many other republicans since then, of a wide array of points of view, and many democrats by the way, to a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. it is not a new idea. it has been passed the senate when president reagan was president but not passed the

democratic controlled house last time. it was passed in 1995 in the house, but failed in the senate by one vote. it is back again because the problems are far, far worse than they ever were under pressure reagan or any president up until the present time in terms of not only the size of this debt, but the projected deficits for as far as the eye can see. not only are we facing a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, which is staggering, far greater than anything we ever saw by when present reagan was in office, but also the projection by both the office of management and budget and the congressional budget office, the accountants, they both say they're for the next 10 years, that deficit ranges between

$800,000,000,000.10 dollar trillion or more per year. that is completely unsustainable. we will be where greece is today in a few years if we do not change that. the public understands that. by 80% margins, they've to support a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. they need to be front and center of part of this discussion about what we do moving forward. we certainly do not want to see a default on our government obligations. absolutely no question about that. i think mr. milbank misreads the intentions of the overwhelming the majority of republicans in the house and senate and in the rest of the country when he makes some of those comments. these are legitimate proposals that have widespread support and ought to be treated so by the president of the united states, who says, we do not need a constitutional amendment to do our job. apparently not, since during his

presidency, we will increase that government debt by $5 trillion. he has never in his entire time in office proposed any budget that ever balances at any time in the future. this is a real contrast between the president's attitude about this debt limit crisis and our spirit we understand there is a crisis that needs to be dealt with. but we understand it is not just getting past august 2nd to continue spending money but making sure that this is stairstep down to a balanced budget amendment and the government live within its means in the future. host: first call comes from spencer, tenn. on our democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i hear a lot about cut, cap, and

balanctrade. host: cut, cap, and balance. caller: i do not think they can balance the budget as quick as they think they will. i hear a lot about how american families balancing their budgets. but we do not have to pay for three or four wars in our budget. and i also wanted to make a point about trade. you hear a lot about free trade, free trade. there is no such thing as free trade. guest: those are very good points. we have a difference of opinion in the congress about different priorities that different elected representatives of people bring forward. the beauty of a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution is that it forces the congress to set priorities. that is the thing that many

democrats and many republicans agree upon. we may not agree upon the best way to spend the taxpayers' dollars and we may not agree on the best level of revenue for the federal government, but many members do agree that you cannot live indefinitely beyond your means. the united states is rapidly approaching the problem. with regard to the sec at point, a completely separate subject but important. it is true that while we have to make sure that american industry is getting access to foreign markets around the world, because many millions of american jobs depend upon that, but free trade has to be freer trade. -- fair trade. once we have it on paper, we have to enforce it under those trade agreements. too often, presidents of both

party have been willing to trade off our rights of u.s. companies to export into other markets for other foreign policy objectives. their trade should a company free trade. -- fair trade should a c ccompany a free trade. host: there is an article from the "post." they had a chart for their poll. the percentage of people seeing serious harm to which institution if the government cannot borrow money after all the separate 82% say serious harm to the u.s. economy. 72% say the reputation of the u.s. as a safe place to invest. do you think obama and the republicans will or will not resolve the debt limit crisis? overall, 54% say yes, they will

resolve it. 58% of democrats said that for only 39% of republicans say that. overall, what is the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit? overall, 32% say cut spending. 62% say a combination of increased taxes and cut spending. of the republicans, 40% say a combination of the two. is there room in the house caucus for maneuvering before august 2? guest: there definitely is. cut, cap, and balance passed the house yesterday. the senate has not passed any thing but i hope they will. this is an item that has passed at least one body of the congress. with regard to the revenue issue, we have been very outspoken about saying, look, there are on their parts of our tax code.

the republican -- unfair parts of our tax code. the republican budget has ways of eliminating those unfair deductions and our tax code. but they would be revenue- neutral apply to other sections of our tax code and to use the tax code as it should be used, not just to raise revenue for the government but to create an environment that creates more jobs in the united states. we have a lot of capital outside the united states that belongs to u.s. corporations keeping it outside because we have one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world. to bring it back into the united states, it would subject it to taxation that discourages them from doing so. if we lower the corporate income tax rate with the elimination of some of the loopholes or address the alternative minimum tax which is getting more middle- class citizens, those would be

healthy for our economy and something that we could agree to that would provide the basis for a resolution of the debt limit crisis. host: next call comes from plant, michigan. -- flint, michigan. caller: with the changes in medicare, it will raise costs on seniors a lot. and also, why that is not conservative, tax increases on seniors, yet if you cut out the all subsidies -- oil subsidies are the corporate jet loopholes, that is considering raising taxes. and you say, you cannot pick up

any revenue if you eliminate the loopholes, then you want to drop their rates for corporations in the top percentage. why don't you say the same thing for the middle class? if you increase their cost massively for medicare, why don't you lower their rates? what is the difference? when you consider a tax increase on the ridge, but the middle class, when you raise their costs, that is not a tax increase. guest: let me be clear -- i favor closing those corporate loopholes, as do a great number of republicans and the republican leadership. we want to make sure that i their job creating incentives to bring capital back into the united states or things that to treat the middle class more fairly in our tax code are what you use those revenues for, making a revenue-neutral. let's talk about medicare

because that is important. there is no proposal that has passed this congress that would cut medicare spending. medicare spending will continue to increase at a significant rate, just not at the rate it has been increasing. those funds will come to less those savings will come about by giving senior citizens, and we're talking about future senior citizens, because the proposal does not apply to anyone over 55 years of age, only under, those folks will get a different system where they can choose from a wide variety of plans. wealthy people will not get the benefits of the full payment of medicare as they do today. right now medicare applies the same to everybody. it would be means tested in the future. if you are low-income, medicare will be completely paid for you. as you go up, it would pay a contribution. this is similar to the federal

employee health benefit plan. all federal employees pay a share of their health care benefit. under this circumstance, with medicare, it would be a gradation so that will the people would get the least and maybe even no subsidy for medicare. you have more choices, but the main thing it does is attacks the problem of how to control rising health care costs. the inflation rate for health care is about four times the inflation rate across the board for other types of expenses that people have. that is unsustainable. it is driven in large part by these government expenditures for medicare, medicaid, and other government provided health care services. just look at medicare in that regard. in 1965, when medicare was passed, it went into effect the following year and cost $1.2 billion for all senior citizens

by 1970, it was $7 billion. by 1990, $110 billion. last year, it was $520 billion. by 2020, is projected under the current system to be close to $1 trillion in spending. 1000 times what it calls the first year it was implemented. that trajectory in spending is completely unsustainable. what senior citizens today and in the future need to worry about is if we do not change the system so that we controlled those health care costs by getting insurance companies the opportunity to come in and compete for the health care dollar of each individual senior citizens and government payments for those senior citizens. if we do not make that change, we will lose the system for everyone now and in the future. it will not take long to reach the point where we cannot afford it. this is what has happened in many european countries.

greece is the one we talked about the most. but many others cannot control their government programs for their citizens. that has resulted in the conclusion on the part of many that they will not be able to sustain their government debt obligation. therefore people do not want to lend them more moneygreece said the rest of europe to bail them out. last year europe did that. the conditioned upon the greek government making changes in their benefit programs. what happened was the government did not follow through on those changes and they are back again this year with an even higher debt to gdp ratio, a shrinking economy, and turned around in bed europe to help them out again. when the united states reaches that point, and we're not that far behind, who are we going to turn around and beg to keep from falling off a cliff? there is no country or economy in the world that the bailout the united states government.

we have to bend this curve is now in order to make sure that programs that are very important to our senior citizens like medicare and social security remain in effect but change the trajectory of the increase in cost of them. host: this is "washington journal," talking with bob goodlatte, a republican of virginia, about the spending issues in front of the u.s. congress. once again, how does cut, cap, and balance including the balanced budget amendment, h.r. 1, your legislation that to introduce every congress, how does it fit in or integrate with the ryan budget passed earlier by the house? guest: cut, cap, and balance is very much related to the rhine and budget. the ryan budget does not balance out for 28 years. it will also be revisited at

some point in the future. i voted for a budget that balances in less than 10 years and that is what our objective should be. this as four parts to it. it has spending cuts which totaled $5.8 trillion over 10 years. it has caps on spending which stairstep down the percentage spends asovernment up portion of our government -- gdp down to about 20% over the next 10 years. then it raises the debt limit by a $2.4 trillion and makes all of those things subject to the passage of a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. not ratification by the states, that could take years. but we want to see a balanced budget amendment for the first time passed out of the house and the senate. it requires a two-thirds

majority in both bodies. many states have one person or another of a balanced budget amendment. i think the states will ratify it. it will take 38 before becomes part of the constitution. it is not a new idea. thomas jefferson just nine years after constitution went into effect, and i am paraphrasing, he wished but for a single amendment, a single article limiting the ability of the federal government to borrow money. i think he was very farsighted. it would be hard for people to argue that the current crisis with the current said -- during world war ii, we have a higher percentage of our gdp, but that was to put 12 million troops winning world war ii out across

the world and to acquit them and find a war. -- fund that war. i know from my father, we ask the american people to sacrifice. they could not kid access to the necessities of life without ration coupons. we were able to bring them back home, put them to work, grow the economy, and shrink that percentage of the debt over the next couple of days to just 30% of our gross domestic product from 100%. this is the first time that we have reached this huge, huge amount of debt as a percentage of our gdp primarily related to other programs that we have in the federal government, many of which are very important to many people, but are unsustainable on the current trajectory.

as i say, no matter your priorities and how you think the government should spend money, the beauty of a balanced budget amendment is that forces your elected officials, but the president and your members of congress, to set priorities and make those tough decisions instead of what happens now. they try to do it all and they kick the can down the road toward our children and grandchildren. it is even more urgent than that. as depressing as it is to see how it could change our children's future, the fact of the matter is that we're close in a few years to seeing an inability to borrow the money that the government is trying to bar a today -- borrowed today appeared we could be the situation that greece is in today. their economy is shrinking, their ability to provide for their citizens is in jeopardy, and they are dependent on bailouts. i do not think other countries will bail us out. host: silver springs, md., thank

you for holding. caller: thank you for taking my call. i completely agree with a balanced budget amendment. it's pretty much a no-brainer. the other thing i wanted to bring out on the revenue side -- have you ever thought about the tax code as it is and the way things are, that we have an income tax, we are penalizing people for doing well. have you ever thought the possibility of changing that to eliminating income tax completely and putting out a federal sales tax? what are your thoughts on that? guest: i support tax reform. the leading versions that we have in the congress are the so- called fairtax, a consumption- based tax, as the caller has reference. and a flat income tax, which was

strongly promoted by dick armey, who said that you could fill after-tax returns on a postcard. -- how your tax returns on a postcard. no matter what your income was coming to deducted $30,000 from that and then paid 17% flat tax on the balance. both of them had the benefit of eliminating a lot of the unfairness in our current code, the uncertainty, hiring accountants and lawyers and tax preparers to fill this out. the consumption-based tax has the benefit of encouraging savings. you are only tax when you spend it. that could help to grow the economy. it could help us when we are exporting overseas. i have introduced legislation

that in previous years has passed the house twice. i call it the tax code determination act. it calls the bluff of all members of congress who agree there need to be tax reform but no consensus said all about whether you take one of those plans for dozens of other plans were simply modify the current tax code. nowhere near a majority for any of them. let's first-degree daguerre read -- rid of the current tax code. sun said it affected january 1, 2014. then allow debate in which at the conclusion and it, we will have the votes on an alternative new form of taxes. i guarantee you, no matter what was chosen, whether consumption- based or a simpler income tax, it would be easier to

understand, harder to cheat on than the current tax code. that is actually passed the house of representatives twice. they have quite a number of co- sponsors of the legislation. it has a lot of interest. it gets the ball rolling on tax reform, which is always on the back burner. host: from twitter. guest: i think the concern is that they -- when you have a government spending, it is certainly good to pay as you do. and we do indeed have that in terms of spending. i think the criticism is that we should also have it when we have tax reductions. we're saying is a part of these

negotiations, we're fine with that as long as you have offsetting savings. we think that tax reductions help to stimulate the economy. we think there is a lot of evidence to support that. therefore we have moved away from that. but the reality is, and i knew not disagree completely with those that say you cannot cut taxes a lot in this environment. i think the number-one thing we need to focus on is reducing government spending and controlling this out of control growth in government spending that has led to this trajectory that we're on right now. my focus is not on either keynesian economic theory, which i think has been discredited greatly here with the stimulus and so on, not growing this economy and not creating jobs, but also if you just let that supply-side economics, or when the government is faltering, the government cuts taxes and

returns capital back to the citizens. they then spend it on what they think is an important and that creates jobs. i think that as a better theory and increased government spending, but if it is not accompanied by substantial reductions in government spending, it is not working. it did not work during the bush and administration for the reagan administration. debt has gone up through all these periods of time. the only time that debt went down was at the end of the closet administration. we have a republican congress and a democratic president. yet that government shutdown in 1995. after that, we had not cutting government spending, but a decrease in the rate of increase in government spending. that coupled with the growing economy led to three or four years led to a balancing budget and paying down on the nest of dead.

when you couple economic growth with fiscal austerity, your are in the best environment. that is where we need to be right now. we need to cut government spending. host: neil on our independent line. caller: i voted for for either party. i am all for common sense and solutions to problems. i am listening to you and you sound very rational in your explanations. the latest delivered and the way you're talking about solving the problems of our country. on the whole, the republican party has fln thought -- may have a messaging problem.

what everyone is sharing, or what the republicans hearing, and it seems to be catching on, other republican presidents have raised taxes. they were successful in raising revenues. and under clinton, taxes were raised. and it was successful. but all the public is hearing is that the only people that you want -- you are interested in having bear the burdens are educators, students, children, kindergarten and other policies that support those in poverty, and elders and seniors. the least of hours. the lead stocksours are bearing

the burden. guest: the messaging problem is always a fair one. when you are outside the white house, you do not have the bully pulpit. the president has said repeatedly that he wants to address unfairness in our tax cuts. these are very small parts of our tax code. but nonetheless, i agree with him. i think those things should be closed. it big oil is getting tax deductions different from every other business across the board, then they should have those things reined in. we should use it to make the tax code fairer for people in our country facing unfair taxation. you have small businesses that pay the full 35% corporate

income tax rates. other corporations pay little or no taxes and giving years. seeking that fairness is something that i agree with. but we are also not targeting any of the groups that he cited. government spending across the board for anything you want to name has increased very significantly in recent years. we have to curtail that. we wanted to it in a way that makes the most sense for the good programs, the people -- that people are most dependent on. but to operate better and to achieve savings at the same time, and i am convinced that we should do that. we have to look for savings and every part bank of our budget, and that includes defense spending, something the republicans also get attacked

for. sometimes fairly, by the way. the defense department has a lot of wasted. i think we could have a more effective military operation that is a leaner and costs that taxpayer is a lot less money. when secretary gates said that their privates that have 100 levels to go through in the chain of command to reach him about some input they want to have into the process, that indicates too large a bureaucracy. when you cannot put more than 100,000 of them into a theater without turning heavily to our guard and reserve units, and you know that there is a bureaucracy there that needs to be given more oversight than they have been given by any political party, frankly. we know hit is the number-one

priority of the federal government, to protect our nation, but it does not mean that they should get a blank check. we should look to achieve savings there as well as in virtually every other part of the federal budget. host: last call comes from alabama. sorry about that. it comes from virginia. is that your district? it is a georgia republican line. caller: is there any way to get rid of capital gains or reduce it? any way to get rid of the death tax? we do appreciate your service, sir. we know you have an uphill battle and we are behind you one other%. guest: i believe that the

reduced capital gains tax helps to incentivize investment in this country many countries do not have capital gains taxes. we have to take that into account when we consider decisions in investment purposes. but as i said earlier, this is a very difficult time to look for additional tax cuts. and by the way, the capital gains tax rate is at a reduced rate right now. they want to make sure we keep it that way. but reducing it further or eliminating it will be very problematic as long as we have these huge deficits and national debt. but with regard to the death tax, a very un fairtax, double taxation. we reached agreement with the president to extend the current situation for another two years. that that tax does not exist right now.

the last that death tax does not exist renown. -- the that tax does not exist right now. you wind up having a family that has to sell a business and ordered to pay the tax. if it sold to large corporations-- you lose bill loy involvement, charitable contributions -- the local community involvement, charitable contributions. the same thing is true with farms. there are many farms across america, including in the shenandoah valley, butterworth millions of dollars -- that are worth millions of dollars. we do need to pay attention and address that.

what we mainly need to focus on in this country today is the fact that the federal government is growing at a completely and as sustainable -- completely unsustainable rate. have to eliminate the programs we simply cannot afford -- we have to eliminate the programs we simply cannot afford. host: finally, a tweet. it is certainly not the case. we have passed legislation in the house dealing with patent reform, which is very, very important. that has also passed the senate. we're trying to work out the very narrow details. that is the jurisdiction of my subcommittee that i chair, and we worked hard on that legislation. it has the potential of creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country by making our patent laws more fair and incentivized for people to develop products in this country

rather than take them overseas, and to make sure they are properly protected in this country. we also are working on legislation to crack down on piracy, which is a growing problem. many people may have experienced this, where they have been on the web site and order products from that website, thinking it was a legitimate business, and then getting some defective piece of merchandise through the mail. what happens is the website is an identical copy of the original, even with an e-mail and phone number for the original. these so-called "rogue websites" are an issue for manufacturers of goods. that sucks millions of jobs out of this country. we think that enforcing our intellectual property laws will help bring millions of jobs

back to this country. host: thank you for being on "washington journal." up next is peter welch, a democrat from vermont. the chief deputy whip on the democratic side. we will continue the conversation about spending and the debt ceiling, etc., with him. on friday morning, one of the gang of six, senator tom coburn, will be back on this program. that is at 7:45 a.m. on friday morning. you will be able to talk with tom coburn, who just recently returned to the gang of six. again, peter welch but next after this news update. >> the senior democrat on the house budget committee, chris van hollen, in remarks earlier said that the death -- a deficit reduction proposal by the gang of six is promising, but added that we need to protect or proceed with a plan b, in case this unravels.

he said that there was likely to little time for congress to act before the august 2 default deadline. american airlines is buying a least 460 new airplanes over the next five years, splitting the order between boeing and airbus. they expect the new, better- mileage planes will save money on fuel and provide more enticing amenities to passengers. from afghanistan, the taliban says that their leader is alive and that a text message an internet posting announcing -- end internet posting announcing his death are fake. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> is weakened on "booktv," on c-span -- and this weekend on "booktv," on c-span2.

on afterwards -- "after words," ben mezrich. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org. sign up for our e-mail alerts to get the schedule in your in box. -- inbox. >> "the supreme court" -- the new edition includes an interview with the newest supreme court justice, elena kagen, and you can add -- elena kagan. and you can add to your experience with -- "washington journal" continues. host: as we continue our precision about the debt ceiling

and other related issues, we're pleased -- are, were stationed about the debt ceiling and other related issues, we're pleased to be joined by the chief deputy whip on the house side, peter welch. tell us why you voted against cut, cap, and balance ac yest today in the house of representatives. guest: -- cut, cap, and balance act yesterday in the house of representatives. guest: it was very extreme. you want to get rid of this $6 billion and put back into deficit reduction. you would have to get to/st. -- get 2/3 plus one to get that. you're putting in these protected categories of tax breaks, special-interest tax breaks. it does not make a lot of sense. i think what we need is a balanced approach to dealing with the deficit, not a

balanced-budget amendment, particularly one that has these " -- these constraints that prohibit congress from getting rid of some of these tax loopholes that are really a big problem in the tax code. host: when you say "a balanced approach," what does that include? guest: what it includes is revenue. those are off the table with the republican plan right now. that includes revenues where we clean up the tax code and it -- and get rid of some things like subsidies. it has to include the pentagon. the pentagon budget is over $700 billion. it has to include a pay-as you go approach -- pay-as-you-go approach. the iraq war has never been paid

for. we just waved away the burden of paying for things we have not approved. we have to cut in one place to find the money or we have to raise the revenue. you link the responsibility for paying for the program or the war or whatever it is with the actual expenditure. the pay-as-you-go approach does make much more sense than in a balanced-budget amendment where you are constrained in emergency and economic downturn situations, where the federal government needs to step up and provide a boost for the economy. host: congressman, it is fair to say that republicans have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to increasing taxes? guest: they have. host: how do you get from there to where you are to august 2 and raising the debt ceiling and cutting spending? guest: it is very precarious.

i have been an advocate of the clean increase in the debt ceiling. this is quite dangerous for the economy and for america. there were a lot of components -- are a lot of components to the deficit, which is absolutely a serious problem, but there are elements that i was strongly opposed to. the iraq war, $1 trillion. afghanistan, we have not paid for that. the tax cuts during the bush years that added to the deficit. i was against all of those, but those are obligation at have been incurred. whether i approve the more did not, we pay our bills -- approved them or not, we pay our bills. in fact, ronald reagan, no stranger to budget battles and tax bites, and iconic figure for the republicans-- tax fights, and an iconic figure for the

republicans, absolutely knew that if we lost our credit rating, that would do enormous damage to the american economy. whether you have the nancy pelosi view or the eric cantor view, if we default and interest rates go up even 1%, that will be hundreds of billions of dollars of additional debt service, and that will not be good for anyone, below say or cantor -- pelosi or cantor. the question is whether we will do this before the bond market's pistol-whip -- markets pistol- whip us into doing something. that could do a lot of damage and to our economy. host: first of all, the gang of six that plan -- that -- debt plan.

immediate spending cuts of $500 billion. but future spending caps on medicare, social security, -- put future spending caps on medicare, social security, and farm subsidies. what is your view of this plan? host: at the 30,000-foot level, what is good about the gang of six plan is, one, it is bipartisan, two, and includes revenues, 3, it is comprehensive, and four, it puts the significant hole in the deficit. the economy will generate something in the order of $150 trillion. that is a significant dent in the deficit. for all of those reasons, there is a lot of promise to the outline and parameters of the gang of six approach. all of us in congress, except for a gang of six, are looking at the details and kicking the

tires. it is very difficult to say how it is specifically when we do not know what the specifics are, but it is a much more promising approach than the showdown we're having in the house right now. host: mitch mcconnell's approach to the debt ceiling dilemma. guest: it is basically a clean glass ceiling -- a debt ceiling would the liability -- basically a clean debt ceiling with a liability. the good news is that america would pay its bills. it would not the fault -- default. the bad news is congress would add to the public disrepute in the way we do business. why is it if you are elected to be a united states senator, you do not have the vote in the

light of day, yes or no, on increasing the debt ceiling, and that is what the mcconnell plan would allow them to do, delegates the president to do what they do not want him to do, and then reserving the right to criticize. it is a pretty convoluted proceeding. host: could you see yourself supporting it? guest: if it is that or the fault, yes -- or default, yes. we have to avoid default. host: peter welch is our guest, democrat of vermont. he represent the entire state of vermont. he is the chief deputy whip on the democratic side. he is a graduate of holy cross college and of university california berkeley. did you get your law degree there? guest: i did. host: our first call comes from gene on our republican line.

caller: it looks like i have paid about $40,000 to medicare over my life. as i understand it, i am going to get $300,000 in benefits. now, that's great. how are you going to protect that. are you going to raise the tax levels? guest: no. you do have a good deal. medicare is an incredibly important health care program for you and for all americans once they reach age 65. the challenge we have in medicare is the challenge we have in health care. the cost of health care in this country is going up two times and three times the rate of inflation, the rate of wages. that is obviously not sustainable, whether in medicare or private health care. the major program -- challenge we have in this country, in the businesses, the federal government, is to try to restrain this escalation of health care costs that is

outstripping our ability to pay. host: boringfileclerk tweets in -- have the money. if you borrowed the money, you have to pay it back. if you borrow money for your mortgage and you do not make payments, bad things will happen to your credit rating. if you all money and your car, your car may be repossessed -- owe money on your car, your car may be repossessed. the other thing is that, if we default as a country and our credit rating goes down, interest rates we have to pay go up, not just as taxpayers on the debt service, but it ripples throughout the economy. if you are borrowing money for a house or car or credit card, your interest rates will go up. if we default, it will smack the market's very -- markets very

hard. people with savings plans would take a very significant hit. it is reckless and irresponsible for anybody to entertain the notion that we will not pay our bills. host: jim hines tweets in -- next call for congressman welch coming from bonds bill, alabama -- huntsville, alabama. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a democrat who has not always voted democrat. as a person of color, i thought it was important, once voter rights were gained, that we research everyone, and i go with the person do not the best plan. my question is -- i watched c- span is hearing -- c-span's hearing with the senate with bernanke. i was just amazed that the

republican response, which was, to me, very outstanding, very open to listening to what was going on. i guess my question is two parts. i wonder if the gang of six hazmat after that and developed -- has met after that and develop their bill. the second part of what i want to know -- tell people and encourage them to start researching the information you here. the media news is not always accurate. i respect c-span for being accurate and not changing the process of what we are going with. but i anchorage all callers, because i hear people calling -- encourage all callers, because i hear people calling who seem to know absolutely nothing about what they are hearing -- i encourage them to start researching. i would encourage c-span to

please rerun that hearing with bernanke, because it cleared up so much for me. host: all right, june, thank you for that call. you can go to our video library and you can watch any hearing at any time that we have covered. that is available online, if that's an option for you. jim on our independent line, royal oak, mich.. michigan. caller: thank you for taking my call. everybody keeps talking about deficits, deficits, deficits. we have 20 million people either unemployed or underemployed. there is a great need for government spending, but at the same time you have a drain on revenue. i just hate when the republicans keep saying we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

the previous caller that called in about -- i have been paying into social security since the 1940's. i am now 81 years old. i have been paying not in today's dollars. in 1955, if you made $5,000 per year, you were considered middle-class. you could buy a car. you could buy a house. today, if you made $5,000 per year, you would be walking the streets. i am sick and tired of calling them entitlements. host: congressman welshed. -- welch. guest: the biggest problem we have in this country is getting people back to work. 9.2% unemployment. millions of people are only working part time when they need full-time work. wages have been absolutely

stagnant. you are right. the bottom line is that we have to do two things at once. we need to find places to invest to make education better and more accessible, to rebuild our infrastructure. the roads, bridges, the necessity to have broadband deployed throughout the country, the waters and sewer systems throughout our country are in need of great repair. our ports and airports. all these things are becoming second-rate compared to many of our competitor countries. if we rebuild that, that is infrastructure that serves not just you and me, but generations that follow us. that is an area where we have to invest. other things -- we really have got to make reforms to try to limit the spending, like the pentagon. like, for instance, health care expenses. if we find a better way to deliver health care, where we are not just rewarding volume with the fee-for-service system, which is so expensive and often

times inefficient -- we can save money in the areas where we need to save money. we have to do both. that is when i was talking about earlier. we have to have a balanced approach. even in tough times, when businesses are looking at the bottom line, they look at every line item in the budget carefully. they also have to spend money and invest so that they are there to fight another day. our government is much the same. host: an e-mail from new mexico. next call for congressman welch comes from david in cold water, -- coldwater, michigan. caller: good morning. my question -- you alluded to the expensive wars. deploying troops is expensive. why don't we fight nuclear wars

that would be over in just a few minutes and would not hardly cost us anything it all? guest: well, i cannot agree with you on that. host: this suite comes from matt smith -- tweet comes from matt smith. guest: vermont does not have single-payer. we are committed to getting to single-payer. we have establish the commission that the governor will be appointing people to serve on to try to solve the practical challenges of going from the multi-payer system that we now have to a single-payer system. one of the challenges we have -- any state would have -- is we need the cooperation of the federal government to give vermont the authority to implement a single-payer plan. it is not establish yet, but the commitment has been made by the legislature and the government.

interestingly enough, this was a major issue in the gubernatorial campaign. our governor, who ran and won, ran explicitly on the pledge of doing everything he could to implement single-payer. my -- vermont voters voted for that. host: fairfax, virginia, we're talking with congressman peter welch about some of the debt issues in washington today. caller: it seems like this goes back as far as some of the antitrust legislation, like when exxon mobil was broken up. if nothing changes, what are you doing to break them back up again? the democrats will never be able to get their agenda --

killer used republican free speech to motivate -- hitler used republican free speech to motivate them before the world war. what are you doing about reinstating the fairness doctrine? you have done nothing about this. you must have some foresight. please do something. guest: one -- the antitrust breakup of the oil companies. i am not familiar with the history of that, but, as i recall, that goes to the last century. the oil companies were big. i have not heard anyone talking about how antitrust could be used to address our situation with the oil companies. the big challenge we have an energy, in my v-i-e-w, is to try is toart moving -- view i, try to start moving to a post-

carbon energy economy. if we sit on our hands and do not start investing in alternatives, we're not only going to continue to have an explosion of greenhouse gases, but we're going to continue to fall behind economically in the job-creation potential that comes from wind, solar, electric vehicles, things that china is starting to do faster than us. secondly, you have a point about the media. i think it is a loss to the public debate that we do not have strong for newspapers. we have all of these media outlets, but we have less news. c-span is an example of unfiltered opportunity to hear and watch directly. that earlier citizen who called and said people should watch -- who watched should research, c- span gives you that opportunity to research as you are watching

and come to your own conclusion, rather than the filtered news that we oftentimes watch. host: in your viewing of the british phone hacking scandal, what is the impact, do you think, and do you think congress should be investigating? guest: there are two things. it is a vivid example of the loss of credibility of major news organizations. that whole hacking scandal was about newspapers not so much getting used as peddling sensationalism, across an ethical and legal boundaries to be the first to get the so- called "scoop," usually something embarrassing for the object of the hacking. if hacking has been done by the organization's -- there is some question as to whether the victim of 9/11 -- victims of 9/11 had been subject to the hacking -- that could be a

criminal problem and should be prosecuted. host: the next call for congress and welsh -- congressman welch comes from texas. caller: i am a reagan republican. i was offended when i cry. guy comparedt himself to me. these republicans refused to do anything -- if the president is for it, they are against it. if they think the american people are going to let them get reelected next time on making the backs of the pore bank, the helpless, the homeless -- the poor, the helpless, the homeless, they won't see a turnout like the one they saw last time. they will see it turn out like

when obama ran. they are taking away from the people that do not have. what are we doing about term limitations? the president can only be president for eight years. why did the senate and house have to be there for 40 and 20 years? if we had eight-year terms for the senate and house, i believe a lot of the problems we have would be solved. guest: i really like what you said about president reagan. he did negotiate. the last time we had a major forum on social security was when president reagan reached a deal with to o'neal, the quintessential, urban -- tip quintessential, urban politician. they came up with the plan to protect it. that was our republican -- a

republican and democrat. president reagan came in to lower taxes, and he did. it was like a 25% across-the- board decrease. when the deficit started exploding, he actually raised taxes. he was willing to look at the reality of the situation and figure out where to cut and raise. on the republican side, we have doctrines that will not do anything on revenues, even if the revenues are by getting rid of these wasteful loopholes. term limitations -- i disagree with you. i think that, number one, if you look at congress, the voters have sent messages in the last three elections. in 2006, when i was elected, there was a large democratic victory in the house. many seats changed hands and the democrats became the majority. in the last election, it was the opposite. there was a huge voter turnout

and big republican majority was selected. without term limits, you did have voters sending their message to washington, particularly as reflected in the house of representatives. i think the voters have the final say and that is the way it should be. host: congressman welch was elected in 2006 and is now in his third term. in the house you have nearly 90 republican freshmen who essentially have said -- drawn a line in the sand, said no new taxes. they are in a political position at there. how do you operate to get to august 2 and raise the debt ceiling? well guest:, the bottom line is that -- guest: well, the bottom line is that this is a challenge for mr. boehner.

he has a seasoned politician and a good man, but he has got a challenge. we have disagreements on many issues, but a majority of us voted for mcclean extension not because we are unwilling to do things towards th budget deal, -- we want to do that, but we don't want to hold hostage the full faith and credit of the united states. mr. boehner has to get votes on his side. he clearly understands and the leadership understands that we cannot see if our creditors. how he is going to manage to get the folks to do what needs to be done, i am not sure he even has the answer yet. the sensible thing is what most americans want -- give a little, they give a little. we but the together and move ahead. -- we put the two together and move ahead. one of the challenges for congress is to find ways to work

together. this total partisan approach, whether it is on health care or the budget, is the kind of gridlock at the rating agencies are siding as an indication and a reason why they might downgrade our credit rating. a great country has to have an institution that can make decisions that need to be made in a timely white. generally -- timely way. generally those are better if we can work together. host: elaine, on with congressman peter welch. caller: i have a a couple of comments before might question grid with republicans are talking, even on your show, how they act -- they act like bullies, and trying to keep our children from being belize, and if they watch anything on tv and see how republicans are always bullying, democrats putting all the blame on them, it has to stop. this man who said that his main

job in the republican party is to get rid of that man and so he only has a one-term presidency -- someone walking down the street would be arrested for threatening the life of the president of the united states. i understand that federal and state employees get 2% cola increases every year. i am retired, i was on disability. we have medicare, yes, and each one pays every month. and then we have a sub-plan where we are paying almost $80 a month. the pharmaceutical industry, we pay more for our drugs than we do for our health care. the main question i really want to ask is why don't they investigate welfare? this is nothing but a fraudulent -- these people live here year on year, they teach their children how to live on it. they are not supposed to have

anything. i turned against them want my son was hit by a car driven by a person on welfare and the crosswalk at school. he never even said he was sorry but he told my husband that my son at his car -- hit his car. i have been against the welfare system ever since. guest: a couple of things. federal employees did not get cola. the pay has been frozen for federal employees. no. 2, in any program, welfare, the budget, there is abuse and we should crack down wherever we can. that is important to do whether it is being done adequately enough where you live, i don't know. if there is abuse, whether it is welfare, corporate loopholes, people not paying taxes, we should enforce laws they and people should not be able to get away with it. host: a lot of comments over the

months about mitch mcconnell's comment about ensuring that president obama is a one-term president. the side, isn't that mitch mcconnell's political job -- flip side, isn't that mitch mcconnell's political job, to ensure that president obama is 81-term president? guest: you know, that is an unfortunate definition of your job. yes, you have your team and you want your team to win, but your job is to help make america successful. fighting against each other guarantees gridlock and impedes success. you can do both, you can be a spirited competitor, and when the election comes you are for your side and you wonder can add it to win -- you want your candidate to win. but you have got to work with people you disagree with, and you have that respect, in my view, the people you disagree with have the same motivation to

make america better country it that you have. we have town meetings in vermont, and what happens over time is you get to know people you disagree with and you see it they have the same struggles, at they or about their kids, they might have a setback because they'd lose a job, they have a death in the family. the motivations are exactly the same as yours, even if they does agree. we need more of that, not just, all the time. -- not just combat all the time. host: is it your job as deputy whip to motivate people against republican proposals? guest: it is about four positive ideas -- about for positive ideas. jason chaffetz is a conservative member of congress from utah.

he and i joined forces to do in that on afghanistan -- to do a letter on afghanistan on ending our nation building strategy, and we did a town hall meeting. i worked with a conservative republican on trying to lower the cost of prescription drugs. i worked with joe barton from texas, who denies global warming is a problem, and we worked on an energy efficiency bill. i find this much more satisfying to look for areas where we share something, common ground, and do it together. sure, when it comes to the election, i will be for the democrats by and large. working with republicans is really important for me to have a chance at being successful. host: next call comes from alabama. go ahead, ashley. democrat. caller: i was calling to see how cut, cap and balance the tax social security for the

impaired, the disabled people who cannot work? host: thank you, ashley. guest: if you are on social security disability, you will still be getting social security benefits. social security is a separate program that is self-funded. it should not be something that is used as a pt bank -- as a piggy bank to balance the budget because we up problems with the spending and the pentagon any thing else, really. social security has to stand on its own, and any changes should be solely about making social security it stronger and more sustainable. host: when congressman goodlatte was out here earlier, he talked about the trajectory unsustainable. do you agree with that? if so, how would you change it? guest: i do. he makes a legitimate point

about the trajectory of spending in health care, if you are going up in expenses to to three times -- two to three times inflation and wages, you cannot sustain that. if you are spending at the rate of about 24% of gdp and you have let the tax base shrinks to a historic low, 15% of gross domestic product, those lines are going in opposite directions. the concern about the trajectory of spending and the balance of revenues and spending, i think he has got a legitimate point. democrats, we agree with that. the approach is different. cut, cap and balance would handcuff us and do it on the economic damage. on the other hand, -- and do a lot of economic damage. on the other hand, if we have a balanced approach and reform the health care delivery system so we don't have the most expensive

health care in the world, and we bring up revenues and make the tax system more fair, we can get the balance. keep in mind we had a balanced budget several years ago with president clinton on, we had a higher taxes under president clinton, but with those higher taxes we had a lower unemployment rate, we created 20 million jobs. the bush years, we lowered taxes and lost jobs. it has got to be balanced and that is what the american people know. guest: well, it doesn't, and i understand that concern, because a lot of people think what we're doing is borrowing more money to spend more money. in fact, when you are increasing the debt ceiling, what you were doing is authorizing us to continue to pay obligations already incurred. there is something about this

debt ceiling a debate that is not on the level. on the republican side, and i hate to make it sound so partisan, but here is the point -- in the house, republicans voted for the ryan budget, which would significantly cut spending over 10 years, significantly cut medicare. but it also lowers taxes, particularly for the so-called "job creators," as they are called by the republicans, or other people would say "the wealthy." that budget increases the deficit from $14.30 billion to $23 trillion -- from $14.30 trillion to $23 trillion in 10 years. it is going to increase the debt by $10 trillion. if you are for a budget that requires you to increase the debt ceiling, why aren't you doing that which you require be done? host: we have five minutes

left with are desperate florida, republican -- five minutes left with our guest. florida, republican. caller: i was a government employee of four years and we received cola thanks to a democrat who brought it in. we have not had it since we had a democrat president. that is part 1. part two of the question is democrats keep talking about on taxation, in which we are a nation where only 50% of our nation pays taxes, and of that 50%, 40% of those taxes come out of the so-called rich. where do they get off a fair tax for people and only 50% of the nation paying for it? guest: i'm not quite sure i totally understood that.

load-income people bought that much i taxes, that is true to eight -- low-income people don't pay that much in taxes. that's true. they don't have that much money. the tax code, in my view, it needs a lot of repair. you have heard of warren buffett, who makes a lot of money, say that this provision in the tax code called carried interest allows him to pay a lower tax rate and people who work for him -- lower tax rate again people who work for him. -- lower tax rate than people who work for him. warren buffett says that is not fair, it is not right, doesn't make sense. the bottom line is we have had a history of progressive taxation -- the rate goes up as you have the ability to pay more to it that has been significantly eroded over the years. host: matt is a democrat from ohio.

where is your county? caller: the southern part of ohio. host: cincinnati side or the other side? caller: the other side. i am 51 years old, and i have been disabled. i keep hearing they are going to cut social security and medicare. i barely get by now. they keep going on how bad our debt is. uk got us involved in this thing in libya, costing us $10 million a day, for what? we don't need to be there. white -- why throw more money there when we are in debt? guest: you have a really good point about priorities. medicare, social security, those are absolutely important. you are 51 years old and disabled, and you depend on that. it is not much.

you are scraping by. if we spend money elsewhere -- $10 million a day -- i will tell you where we're spending a lot of money, iraq and afghanistan, where the big money is going -- then it takes money away from being able to do other things. that is the battle in washington. it is about what should be our priority is. we have got to do much more domestically. we should be working hard to invest in our infrastructure, have a good health care system. i think we ought to be moving away from these nation-building efforts that are extremely expensive and i don't think add to our national security. host: what is the current status with libya? it has kind of a fallen out of the front pages and out of the papers, and as cents. it is in the back of our minds right now. guest: that is right. the united states is a partner in the coalition after that is essentially a focused on a

bombing campaign that is intended to protect civilians in libya from the wholesale slaughter that muammar gaddafi has promised if left to his own devices. mr. gaddafi has lost international legitimacy. the united states and several other countries have recognized the transitional government as the valid authority. the united states role is limited as a partner in this bombing campaign intended to protect civilians. the president has made it clear, no boots on the ground. host: does congress in general feel it has enough of a say and what is going on in libya right now? guest: no. the president should have complied with the war powers act and come to congress with specific authorization. host: would you have supported it? guest: i support the war powers act. host: would you supported in this case? guest: the policy in libya id

support. if it is limited and intended to protect civilians from slaughter, i do support it. but i think the war powers act does apply here and the president should come and see the specific permission. host: last call for deputy with peter welch. caller: good morning, gentlemen. how are you? i have been hit very discouraged -- i have been very discouraged by the discussion and the way the debate is framed considering the debt talks, considering the fact that, as you mentioned earlier, we have been at war in 10 years and have not raised $1 of revenue to pay for his activities -- those activities. when republicans get on my television, i am screaming at the screen. if we never raise revenue, how will we deal with the deficit? the whole point of this is to force the dismantling of the social contract. if the government is that money to pay for social security or

medicare or medicaid -- if the government does not have money to pay for social security or medicare and medicaid, they feel they can force the dismantling of those programs. it is discouraging to see that some of the same people who voted for the prescription drug benefits or to go to war in iraq and afghanistan put the debt on the books and are now refusing to raise money to cover those bets. debts.se guest: well, i was very articulate. he said it very, very well, and i agree with you -- you said it very, very well, and i agree with you. host: we will return to the phone hacking scandal in the u.k. with alex spillius, a correspondent with "the daily telegraph" newspaper, the largest circulating daily newspaper in london not affiliated with news corp.

we will get his you after this news update from c-span radio. >> minnesota lawmakers worked through the night and early in the morning today to approve the state budget. minnesota's government has been shut down for nearly three weeks, keeping some 20,000 state workers home. gov. mark dayton plans to sign the budget into law today. stock futures are heading higher, this a day after the dow jones industrial average posted its largest gain in this year. apple is up 5% in pre-market trading. also up, coca-cola and ibm. ahead of the opening bell, dow futures are up 67 points. former michigan congressman pete hoekstra is launching a campaign challenging democratic senator debbie stabenow. in a statement earlier, he said he decided he cannot "said on the sidelines while democrats try to raise taxes to balance the federal budget."

the forecast for the landing of the space shuttle atlantis and a florida which will bring an end to the mission of the international space station and the end of nasa's space shuttle program. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> every weekend, american history tv on c-span3. watch personal interviews about historic events on "oral histories." our history bookshelf features some of the best known history writers. the one ordered 50th anniversary of the civil war to -- 150th anniversary of the civil war. go behind the scenes at museums and historic sites on "american artifacts." the presidency -- "the presidency" looks at that policies and presidencies of the past american presidents.

>> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is washington journal, our live call-in program about the news of the day, connecting with elected officials and policy makers and journalists. watch live coverage of the u.s. house. we get, congressional hearings and policy forums. on the weekends, our signature interview programs. on saturdays, "the communicators," on sunday, "newsmakers," "q&a," and "prime minister's questions." it is all searchable on our c- span a video library. c-span, washington your way. public service created by america's cable companies. "washington journal" continues. host: now we are going to return to the topic of the phone hacking investigation in the u.k. joining us is alex spillius,

washington correspondent for "the daily telegraph," an english newspaper which is the largest circulated daily broadsheet in the u.k. mr. spillius, we asked our viewers earlier this morning and i will ask you the same question -- overall, what is the impact of this phone hacking scandal as you see it right now? guest: well, it is huge. the story started years ago and built up gradually d. one person at "news of the world," and more people and more people. the story that came out about the murdered schoolgirl's voicemails the impact exploded the store into a whole new dimension is involving -- it is involving police at the highest levels, journalists, at downing street.

it is going to the core of the british establishment. for the british, there has not been a star of this magnitude for some time -- a story of this magnitude for some time. host: as somebody who works for a british newspaper in washington, how you define the differences between the u.s. media and the british media? guest: good question. i have often thought about. there is a bit more for a tradition of being disrespectful of authority and assuming people in authority are not so good. the great rallying cry of the british media is to get the so- and-so's. it is an intensely competitive market. there is about a dozen national papers covering the old country. they are all competing for the same audience, whether it is the tabloid market or the more upmarket market. it really is a cutthroat business. in america, you have one or two newspapers in each market and

they don't have intense competition. for the likes of "news of the world," what the "news of the world" is up to -- the standards are higher in the u.s. as a whole. they tend to be more rigorous. there is an intense level of competition in the u.k. host: is it normal for british newspapers to pay for interviews, access? guest: it is standard practice for the tabloids. host: what about the broadsheets? guest: it is known occasionally. there was a big scandal about mp's expenses last year, which came from information that is the voice of -- information that is the will serve and got on a computer disk.

my newspaper paid for that because they thought it was in the public interest. that is a rare instance of a broadsheet paper paying for information. for the tabloids, we call it checkbook journalism. salacious information about a night out on the town with a celebrity or pop star or encounters with celebrities. that culture has grown and become more insidious over the past 20 or 30 years. host: how would you describe, to help put it in perspective -- by the way, we will put the numbers on the screen as we continue this conversation about the phone hacking investigation in the u.k. prime minister cameron spoke this morning at a problem about it and we carry that live on c- span -- spoke this morning in parliament about it and we carry that live on c-span2.

we carry rupert murdoch and rebekah brooks yesterday and we will speak about that. how do you describe to an american audience the importance of "news of the world" as the largest selling sunday newspaper in the country, and the closure of that paper? guest: it was shocking. a lot of people were shocked by the closure. it was a sudden and brutal move, and murdoch's decided that enough was enough -- murdochs decided enough was enough and they had to take this extreme step. "news of the world" set the standard for tabloid journalism. it has been a pretty low standard for recent years, but they have always been in front, always seemed to be getting the best spooks, the best gossip -- best scoops, the best gossip. "news of the world" and "the sun," the murdoch daily tabloid,

were the epitaph of tabloid journalism. -- epitome of tabloid journalism the rocket. raucous, titillating tabloid journalism, which we enjoy to extan extent. host: did you know, when you were living in london, rebekah brooks at all and her work? guest: she was editor of "the sun" when i was there. she had a reputation of being a very talented, if not ruthless, tabloid editor, if every employee of rupert murdoch. often referred to as a surrogate daughter, because he admired her so much. host: when you worked at "the

sun" -- guest: i did not work at "the son of." -- "the sun." she was working there when i was living in london. host: all, i'm sorry. please allow 30 days between your calls. you can also send us a tweet -- twitter.com/cspanwj, journa l@cspanwj, and you can continue the conversation on our facebook page. the conversation is an ongoing conversation, and we will be reading some of those comments during this segment of the

shout. the first call for mr. spillius comes from taxes on the democrats' line. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. spillius may not be the one to answer the question -- host: have got to turn down the volume on the tv. listen to the found and go ahead -- the phone and go ahead. caller: in this country we used to have a fairness doctrine so you had equal time for each segment of politics and so forth. what amazes me is that the very conservative family values types, christian fundamentalist s, are in love with the fox news and rupert murdoch, who built his empire on porn from

way back. the man is completely evil. i don't understand it. i wonder sometimes if people realize just how far back this pornographic approach of his goes. now it is even criminal. host: mr. spillius, any comment for her? guest: well, i am not sure what the caller was referring to one is saying that mr. murdoch to build his empire on porn. his most famous page of "the sun," page three, there was a topless a girl every day. he did pioneer that. i think that is gone now. but he has never been involved in the porn industry per se. i suppose there might be some irony that in the contrast

between the sort of thing his newspapers have done in britain and what his politics is, the fox news cable channel here. we should at this point stressed that there is no evidence of any sort of misconduct by any of his american news outlets, be it fox or "the journal" or "the new york post." host: what is his reputation in the uk? guest: his reputation is it one of the most powerful people in the country. he owned almost 34% of the national media market. bskyb, which he on a share -- they blocked a controlling share -- is the big pay-tv service. he has been a huge figure in our public life for the past 20, 30

years, which is why so many of his opponents are so pleased that his reputation has not taken such a beating -- has now taken such a beating. host: next call for alex spillius comes from woodstock, illinois. caller: i picked up "the economist" magazine the other day, an excellent edition. on page 12, they go into their editorial basically, and it is based out of london. it says "if it is proven that news corp. managers conducted lawbreaking, they should not be running in newspaper or television firm. they should be in prison." toynbee940's, arnold wrote about challenge and response, and he is from england

as well. this is our civilization's challenge at this time, to make sure that we have good, accurate news so we can participate in government. i appreciate c-span taking on this issue as it has. guest: the question does raise a legitimate point. at the moment in britain, people are reeling from all the revelations which, day-by-day. -- come out day-by-day paid when it thinks calm at down a little, there will be more about the news industry and regulation and how it needs to be changed. here the regulations were eased up in the 1980's and 1990's. all of his purchases were referred to the monopolies commission at the time, and they were approved. isthink a long hard look a

going to be needed about whether it is right for one person to become so powerful. it allowed his news executives to think they could get away with breaking the law. host: rebekah brooks yesterday talked about her relationship with david cameron. here is a little bit of rebekah brooks. >> rebekah brooks was invited six times a year to 10 downing street under both the former prime ministers. she has not been invited by mae. i have set out -- the great contrast is i have set out things i have in complete contrast to the party opposite. i can say this to the hon. gentleman, i have never held a slumber party or seen her in her pajamas. host: that, of course, was prime minister cameron from this

morning talking about his relationship with rebekah brooks. she talked about her relationship with the prime minister yesterday. alex spillius. guest: as mr. cameron was saying, she has been friends not just with him, but previous prime minister gordon brown, and probably tony blair, too. his point was "it is not just me." she slept over at the official country residence one time when gordon brown was prime minister. but david cameron is prime minister now and he is very close to her. in the light of what we now know about what "news of the world closed what journalists were up to, people in britain are having a heart -- what "news of the world" journalists were up to,

people in britain are having a hard time believing him. he believed nothing much was going on at "news of the world" or you was just one or two journalists. if you ask, what does this mean for britain, that is probably the main impact, that trust is being broken in politics at the highest level and in newspaper journalism. i think that is a problem, and i cannot see at the moment how the trust is going to be fixed. host: next call for alex spillius of "the daily telegraph," richmond, virginia. caller: the previous caller stole my thunder in quoting "the economist" but they finished the editorial by saying "a noisy press is the best protection." and you addressed the political impact. what are the questions for the

metropolitan police in terms of the alleged corruption, paying for information? that one has not gotten the prominence i thought it might have. guest: well, it is a good question. just as i said we have to look at newspaper ownership and politicians have to look at whose birthday parties, they go to, police have to look at how they operates. we have a fiber six senior members of the metropolitan police, -- five or six senior members of the metropolitan police, refer to as scotland yard, have worked for news international advising them in a pr capacity. what worked for the government. there is this kind of seedy revolving door between the police and as powerful media company. as i said, when it is calms down a little, police need to look at self-policing, especially with regard to what

people do after they left. but it also seems to be an issue plane corruption. police were being bribed by journalists to provide information. that could end up, as the caller said, it has not been that big a part of the story yet. we could have police facing disciplinary hearings if not criminal prosecutions. host: do you see potential of this bringing down the camden government? guest: -- cameron government? guest: people are beginning to think that. if he had an election in six months, it would be serious. it does not look very good. the scandal last year broke a lot of trust in politicians. now you have got a prime minister who appointed someone, his former communications director, a former editor of "news of the world" when the

hacking was taking place. it is hard to believe the prime minister did not know that hacking was endemic at "news of the world," so the only conclusion is that he did not care. host: how do you perceive the coziness or relationship between u.s. politicians and reporters? guest: well, it certainly can be cozy. politicians and reporters socialize together. they go to the same parties very often here in washington. but i don't think it is quite reached the level of the occasions that happened in england. the intimacy of weekends away at the official residence, it might be wrong, but i don't think you have american newspaper barons going to camp david for the weekend, which is what happened in the case of rebekah brooks.

host: a couple of e-mail commenets. -- comments. that is one, to be received. -- one comments we received. next call for alex spillius comes from georgia. iraq on our democrats' line. -- eric on our democrats' line. caller: i think we need ito widen the discussion a little bit. in 1986, reagan signed a fairness act, which put the cuffs of corporate media in the u.s.

democrats should be upset about that and allow corporations to spew the news or define reality as they see fit, whatever helps the bottom line of the corporation, not informing the voters. this is a national security issue. we need informed voters. if we don't have the fairness act, the corporations can tell voters whatever they feel like telling them as long as they don't tell them outright lies. but they can mislead them, and they are very good bit misleading them. and the british prime minister, the prime minister of britain, said it to parliament that he was scared of rupert murdoch. how could you be scared? if you are the leader of a country, how can you be scared of a newspaper -- host: we are going to leave it on those two points and there. mr. spillius, are you familiar with the fairness doctrine? does the u.k. have anything similar? at the prime minister is saying to parliament he is scared of rupert murdoch --

guest: coming through the back door -- host: yeah, what is the significance of that? guest: they don't want to be seen as entertaining or barack, being friendly to him. it is rare for a -- they don't want to be seen as entertaining rupert murdoch, being friendly to him. it is rare for the dignitaries -- host: number 10 is half a mile from parliament or so? guest: yeah, short walk. that was one of the most interesting parts of the testimony yesterday, i thought. rupert murdoch going through the back door under three prime ministers. host: what about the color bang's comment about the fairness doctrine? are you from -- the caller's comment about the fairness doctrine? are you familiar with that? guest: i understand the argument, but the changes in the 1980's to open up the media market. you could say there is a balance

on cable, at least. you have a fox and msnbc. one does better commercially than the other, but i will not go into why that may be at the moment. host: what about the uk? guest: much more heavily regulated. not in print, but in the broadcast, you have to of both points of view. it is all tightly regulated. host: next call for alex spillius comes from virginia, david. caller: if the british politicians' phones were being attacked, what would stop rupert murdoch from attacking democrats' fault lines in this country? anthony weiner's email was

attacked by a supposed right wing -- was hacked by supposed right wing blogger. guest: we don't have any evidence that there was hacking in the u.s. if there was, this story is going to get bigger. if evidence emerges of a phone hacking here, especially of politicians, news corp. is in even bigger trouble than they are now. host: how long have you been working in the u.s.? guest: four years. host: how would you compare parliament to congress? guest: that is a good question. as we saw david cameron being grilled, is a live the enterprise. i think we are quite proud of that. i speak to politicians here who

wish we had an equivalent. debate here can be stodgy. host: is very popular when we. on c-span as well. -- it is very popular when we air it on c-span as well. what is fleet street mean? guest: the print unions had a very tight grip on the industry. in the early 1980's, murdoch wrote that, and he took his newspapers out of the street, -- murdoch broke that, and he took his these papers out of fleet street and 2to a new site. there were protests. fleet street is still used as an umbrella term for national newspapers.

host: have you talked to colleagues who work for news corp.? what is their view of this? guest: they are keeping a pretty low profile, i have to say. my colleagues who work for news corp. work for quality newspapers, "times of london," "sunday times." one said that hopefully this will blow over soon. i'm not so sure. there are lots of celebrities that "news of the world" wrote about here. "news of the world" had a bureau here for years. it is hard to believe that they did not get into phone hacking as well. host: "wall street journal" this morning, a murdoch publication -- "murdochs are grilled."\

several articles within "the wall street journal" about the testimony yesterday. here is "the times of london." "murdoch's defends" is the headline. what was the headline in "the daily telegraph"? guest: to be honest, the time difference, i have not seen it. i don't think it was up " murdoch's defense." [laughter] host: inside "the wall street age becomes.eo's an issue." guest: they have that done it much more thoroughly the last week or so.

it raises the question about that your company -- about the head of your company. "then't think we at th daily telegraph" have been quite so bold about his age. there are people who know him well who think he was playing that up, playing up the hard of hearing and mumbling more than he does naturally, the gruffness. indulging in elderly theatrics. i don't know if he thought that ympathy.t him said spillius, what does that mean?

guest: that is a highly sensitive issue. murdoch, before this crisis, was poised to take control of the bskyb, the biggest pay-tv service in britain. david cameron's government had to prove that. is now irrelevant, since murdoch has dropped the bid amid the scandal. did david cameron discuss this application with his very good friend rebekah brooks and other peopl ande -- other people at news international, the new very well and whose birthday party he went to? it does not look great. there are ways of convincing, dodging questions. it does not look great. people are going to conclude that at dinner parties behind closed doors, he was giving the green light. host: who owns "the daily

telegraph"? guest: we are independently owned, two businessmen who have been in media publishing for 20 years or so. host: they have owned it for 20 years? guest: no, they have on our publication for five years. prior to that we were owned by conrad black. host: editorially, does "the telegraph" lien right and did it endorse david cameron? guest: yes, it did. host: next call. caller: i think this all goes back to george soros and media matters. it is well known that he is out to get fox. i think he may have lied about

these accusations. guest: well, it is well known that media matters did not like a fox and made it their mission to point out fox's -- what they see as the unbalanced as for george soros, i am not sure what he has said about rupert murdoch and fox news. host: funder of media matters. pennsylvania. caller: this is being billed as the phone hacking. in my mind, is more about plutocracy. he is so powerful, and i don't even blame him, because we allow media consolidation. he is so powerful no one will say anything against him, because he knows he will get away with this. jude law said his phone was actor.d -- he is an

who would say anything against this man when you control so many things? you would be crazy. guest: that is a good point. media ownership would have to be limited in the u.k. people were afraid for him to. politicians would not oppose him, and even individual mp's -- there were people who were afraid to say anything against him, because "news of the world" might say something against me. he did have a great deal of power. host: james murdoch's reputation -- he is based in london, right? guest: he switches between london and new york. we did not see much about him before this business t. he came across as corporate, somebody who had been coached.

i am not sure his position will last. some people have said he will be a high-profile casualty of this. host: what about chase carey? guest: chief operating officer of news corp., lined up to be taking over as chief executive for rupert murdoch, which would lead him as at chairman, but he would not be involved in the day-to-day running. given the fact that he is 80, i would be surprised if that was not being discussed already before this happened. host: james murdoch is the fourth child of rupert murdoch. what about the other three? guest: elizabeth murdock runs eight production company, married to -- elisabeth murdoch

runs a production company, married to matthew freud. it there is another son who was involved in the family business, less so now. host: a tweet to you, mr. spillius. guest: the fbi are in the preliminary stages, looking into allegations contained in a "daily mirror" reports that "news of the world" tried to access to voicemail of victims of 9/11 attacks. the fbi are on the case and we're not sure how far it will be taken. the death of the whistle-blower -- very sad. years ago we trained on the course together as colleagues.

it is very sad, and it makes the price is deeper. you cannot directly -- and makes that crisis deeper. you cannot directly connected. he had issues with drinking and drugs. host: his issues with drinking and drugs were a wall mount? -- were well known? guest: yes, when he told this to "the new york times," his old colleagues at "news of the world" pointed out he had addictions. he was credible. having known him when we were much longer, he is somebody whose heart was in the right place. he was tired of working and living this lie. host: news corp. was terminated

payments to the private investigator. what is the significance? guest: the significance is they akept going with payments to people were being investigated. the suspicion was they work trying to make sure -- it does not look good if you keep paying people under heavy suspicion, especially if they were not on the payroll. if they were paid job my job -- job by job, as it were. it is typical, the company's reaction to the bank close one thing, they think this is -- thing, theyone think this is over, and then that they are under fire for paying people. i am not sure the company knows how to stem the bleeding at the

moment. host: we have about four minutes left before the house of representatives, to session. new york. caller: good morning. i watched all the proceedings in parliament yesterday. i was not very convinced by people questioning murdoch and his son and brooks. i thought scotland yard was above reproach. it really shocked me to see what has penetrated into the police force, the law enforcement of the government. also, how come all politicians cozy up to these people across the atlantic? it is both sides. the appointments made a not thoroughly vetted before they

are appointed? guest: i think is a very fair point. a lot of britain has been shocked by the revelations about scotland yard. the british police have a reputation as uncorrupt and fair, so that has shocked a lot of people. as we said earlier, the force is going to have to look at imposing some sort of system for analyzing and checking who people talk to for payments, the jobs they take up after the date be the service. the second part of the question -- host: i apologize. twitter comment. new jersey, john on the independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i would like to ask alex if the reason why journalists in great britain are so aggressive to get

the story is because the law system is you are guilty until proven innocent. the other point is, yesterday, rupert murdoch i looked like -- rupert murdoch looked like junior soprano on the tv series. guest: well, i missed that part of "the sopranos." i will have to catch up. host: rebekah brooks was arrested. do you number status? gues -- do you know for status? guest: it is a little less serious than it is. it means you have been taken in for questioning. none of the people at "news of the world" had been charged yet. some have been arrested. th